I don't really see markets as limited. I think they are pretty amazing for the most part. But they can have some nasty side effects if they go unregulated. It may be that my viewpoint is different since in the US markets are given a bit more power compared to many industrialized countries.

Perhaps, although I'm not that sure, in some EU countries working families have more holidays, higher wages and less time to work until retirement but I think that the market forces are looked upon as being able to create order and provide allocative efficiency for the most part.

Its being expanded further, most of the EU trade agreements now are hard line neo-liberal, in part its because of supranational agreements and institutions such as the GATT agreements and WTO where that is the orthodoxy.

Its not simply health that's being hit, water monopolies, telephone monopolies, all those which are already monopolies and can only really operate that way because entry and exit costs are too great are being handed over to the market to sort out.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

So you're saying you want no government. You want anarchy? What you say might allow for minarchy, some really tiny government.

Well, good news, I can help you with your decision. Anarchy and minarchy will only last like a flicker before turning into a standard government that you call a nanny government. So, I've removed the stress of having to make a choice.

Originally Posted by Metaphor

Best for whom?

The vast majority of human beings. We can stop there, because other details don't matter.

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

So you're saying you want no government. You want anarchy? What you say might allow for minarchy, some really tiny government.

Well, good news, I can help you with your decision. Anarchy and minarchy will only last like a flicker before turning into a standard government that you call a nanny government. So, I've removed the stress of having to make a choice.

Presupposition which invalidates the point.

The vast majority of human beings. We can stop there, because other details don't matter.

Everything has flaws, but I think there are better options and worse options. I hate corporations, I really do. There are very few cases where there's something that a worker cooperative, a consumer cooperative, or direct government control, could not do a better job than a corporation. Maybe two of the three would be terrible for the job, but one is usually better than a corporation. A sort of technical exception could be made for things that function like corporations but are on a very tight leash held by the government.

Well, yes, things need to be mixed. I'm not sure if that mixture needs corporations, though.

What is the goal, anyway? I always thought it was a higher quality of living. That through use of resources and development of technology we make society a better place to live, and to do so as equitably as possible. Whatever works best to that end is what we want. I'm skeptical about Keynes on some things, but I do assume to achieve this goal, capital needs to be moving around a lot.

I've been curious about something lately. I have a friend who's really into defense spending, to the point that he almost favors the warstate model even if there's no war we need to have (sounds kind of 1984 if you ask me). What I asked him two days ago was "can you think of something that would economically operate like the warfare state that doesn't actually involve department and companies designed for war?". In theory, all it takes is heavy and complex goods production, and a lot of it. Does that have to be geared toward war or defense? Isn't there something more socially useful that could have the same needs? It's something worth looking into.

Well, they exist as patterns of belief and behavior, and that's all they exist as. Letting market forces do everything is actually a synonym for doing nothing. They are more or less present to the degree that deliberate, purposeful decisions are made about influencing or controling the economy.

Well, I do think corporations where an accident of history and they where favoured by all left, right and centre at the time they emerged pretty much, the unions and big business working in partnership seemed to provide the sort of class compromise people wanted.

Fordism in the US was a system of accumulation which escaped some of the contradictions which had plagued earlier varieties of capitalism, pretty much because Ford realised that he had to pay his own workers enough to buy the things they where producing.

The thing about the welfare-warfare state, its all Keynesianism US or alternative, is that the state is the only firm which could possibly move the amount of money necessary to keep the economy pump primed. Private agencies, whether they are worker controlled, shareholder controlled or controlled by boards of managers, alone or in aggregate couldnt move that kind of money. Even if some sort of radical board room pay cuts took place accompanied by pay rises for the least paid in the organisation, unlikely as that is, it couldnt happen.

So there are masses of businesses which are indirectly dependent upon the state, not just the tat purveying cent and dime shops either.

I'm pretty much in agreement with most capitalist definitions of allocative efficiency, equity is important too but in the main where an economy is approximating most closely to allocative efficiency it will obey consumer sovereignty and work will be available. I agree with you that talking about using market forces is pretty much synonymous with simply do nothing.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

A completely free market assumes that people have sufficient self-preservation instincts not to blow themselves up through greed or at minimum, be relatively informed buyers. Wrong.

But I struggle and have disdain for the concept of nanny governments. Maybe it's best to allow market forces to define who survives.

That is a good point. The model of rational calculator which exists in economic theory is at odds with the normative consequences of a market economy and its impact upon human development. By the point people are expected to behave as rational calculators they are already pretty much addicts. The market will just channel that behaviour further.

How you overcome that I dont know because the very institutions and culture which used to provide the non-state breaks on it are disintegrated and its not because of left wing pressures. Its more to do with people expecting the same freedom they have in theory as consumers to make and break deals in every other part of their lives.

I dont like the nanny state either, I define that as state paternalism and interventionism in the form of education, local or national health promotion drives, social services, prohibitions, all of which in aggregate is an attempt to push through cultural norms, the state isnt good at that.

It cant do it entirely where it has an absolute positive role to do so, such as preventing violent crime and disorder. It can actually be alienating and provoke the opposite of what it intends in terms of attitude change (this is also why I'm opposed to some of gay, race and feminist agenda in its present form).

Although I dont confuse that with regulation of markets or the payment of benefits, perhaps benefits are paternalistic because the responsibility to generate household revenue isnt with a bread winner but I dont think that's the same. It does have negative consequences I think. However pulling the plug on it would drain off more money from the economy than is already being drained away by the socialisation of banks and investors debts.

I think that co-management and other variations on that theme could be conducive to restoring the sorts of personal responsibility which I think both left and right would welcome.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

No. Not any more than me saying that the ball I throw in the air will fall down because of gravity is invalidated by a presupposition. Or would you insist that I explain gravity?

I can try to explain why what I said was true, but it's a bit long. Let's just say that population size, level of technology, and complexity of administration are stuck in an autocatalytic cycle of sorts.

You could have your anarachy or minarchy if you were okay with tiny, primitive populations.

Originally Posted by Metaphor

Again, presupposition of what's considered "good" for human beings.

Happiness is good. That is my base presumption. We all have to presume something somewhere, and that is my presumption. I hope I don't have to explain to you why I might think things like health, security, leisure, abundance, and so forth would make people more happy. If you ask me to, it will be very obvious you are entirely in point scoring rhetoric mode and I'll just move on.

If we take some of these things I listed, what will basically happen in your social darwinism setup is that the distribution of prosperity will become hyperbolous. Unchecked, unregulated, those who have will get. Wealth will give one the power to obtain more wealth. Before you know it, a ridiculously disproportionate amount of wealth, and in turn prosperity in the form of those things I mentioned, is in the hands of very few. And this begets its own problems, because this further enhances a power disparity and you get some kind of kleptocratic despotism (a shitty government!).

So that's how it would be worse for most people. The majority of people would have less health, security, leisure, abundance, etc... Ultimately less power. Might be a reasonable guess that most people will be pretty unhappy at this point, too. The majority would be sub-par and a very exclusive few would be very super-par.

You getting what I've roughly said here?

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

No. Not any more than me saying that the ball I throw in the air will fall down because of gravity is invalidated by a presupposition. Or would you insist that I explain gravity?

I can try to explain why what I said was true, but it's a bit long. Let's just say that population size, level of technology, and complexity of administration are stuck in an autocatalytic cycle of sorts.

You could have your anarachy or minarchy if you were okay with tiny, primitive populations.

All I'm asking for is evidence for statements of such.

Happiness is good. That is my base presumption. We all have to presume something somewhere, and that is my presumption. I hope I don't have to explain to you why I might think things like health, security, leisure, abundance, and so forth would make people more happy. If you ask me to, it will be very obvious you are entirely in point scoring rhetoric mode and I'll just move on.

If we take some of these things I listed, what will basically happen in your social darwinism setup is that the distribution of prosperity will become hyperbolous. Unchecked, unregulated, those who have will get. Wealth will give one the power to obtain more wealth. Before you know it, a ridiculously disproportionate amount of wealth, and in turn prosperity in the form of those things I mentioned, is in the hands of very few. And this begets its own problems, because this further enhances a power disparity and you get some kind of kleptocratic despotism (a shitty government!).

So that's how it would be worse for most people. The majority of people would have less health, security, leisure, abundance, etc... Ultimately less power. Might be a reasonable guess that most people will be pretty unhappy at this point, too. The majority would be sub-par and a very exclusive few would be very super-par.

You getting what I've roughly said here?

The economic happiness quotient. I don't buy into it since advancement of civilisation can be laid at the feet of dissatisfaction.

As far as unchecked, refer to the Russian and French Revolutions. Refer to the Communist (actually socialist) takeover in China. We check ourselves through equalisation.

But let's argue the other side. Overpopulation isn't "good" for mankind and neither is the current irresponsible nature of the Peter Pan generation.